[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/16] lguest: introduce vcpu structure
    On Monday 07 January 2008 04:33:53 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
    > On Dec 25, 2007 9:54 PM, Rusty Russell <> wrote:
    > > My only question is whether we should go further and vpu-ify routines
    > > like lgread and kill_guest, so that we can avoid more "lg" temporary
    > > variables...
    > Essentially, they don't need it, because they only touch
    > globally-visible variables (visible to the guest).
    > So it's more of an stylish thing. Using the vcpu in the signature can
    > have only one harm:
    > It needs the caller to also have a pointer to a vcpu, so we may end up
    > using it everywhere, like a domino fall.
    > Alternatively, in such functions that don't currently receive a vcpu
    > (nor they need to), we can convention to always pass
    > lg->vcpus[0] to lgread, kill_guest, etc. Which one do you prefer?

    I'm happy with a domino effect. I don't want to see lg->vcpus[0] *anywhere*
    though, because it's non-futureproof.

    When I looked through these patches it seems to me that we should accept that
    vcpu is now the basic guest unit, and lg exists to serve it. Otherwise I
    think you can see the bones of the old UP code poking through, and that's


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-07 01:57    [W:0.039 / U:26.904 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site